@@DEMONYM@@ tourists @@randommalename(1)@@ and @@randommalename(2)@@ were recently on a romantic city break in the capital of South Bigtopia, and like many other couples made a point of kissing by moonlight on the world-famous Lovers' Bridge. Unfortunately for them, homosexuality is a crime in South Bigtopia and they were arrested.

OPTION ONE

"@@firstname(1)@@ and @@firstname(2)@@ perhaps could have been more circumspect, but they're @@DEMONYM@@ citizens who have committed no crime under our laws," phones in @@DEMONYM@@ Consulate Officer Les Beecalm. "We have a moral obligation to negotiate their release. I suggest we could make a couple of trade concessions, favouring South Bigtopian woolen goods with selective tariffs on competitor nations, for example. In return, our out-of-the-closet citizens can be gotten out of hot water. I'm also confident we can establish procedures to send home any @@DEMONYM@@ arrested there in future. Everybody wins."

Outcome: when their backs are against the walls @@PLURALDEMONYM@@ look out for gay men

OPTION TWO

Reverend Devyn Offor is both a priest and a general in the South Bigtopian Holy Army, and he has a counter-proposal. "Gayness is against the will of the Lord our God. We will give you back these transgressors, but you must recognise the holy truth that homosexuality is a grave sin. Ban batty-boy loving in @@NAME@@, and we'll extradite these criminals to your jurisdiction. Let us move forward together, in faith." He gazes up adoringly at a semi-naked statuary depiction of his deity.

Outcome: man-love is banned in the name of His love

OPTION THREE

"We have to be balanced about this, I'm afraid," offers Foreign Office diplomat Don S. Dunne. "Out of respect for judicial sovereignty we must leave the couple to the mercy of the South Bigtopian justice system, but in future we can set up a bureau to issue guidance and travel advice for gay holiday-makers."

Outcome: the government offers gay men mildly offensive tips on how to "pass" as straight

@@DEMONYM@@ tourists @@randommalename(1)@@ and @@randommalename(2)@@ were recently on a romantic city break in the capital of South Bigtopia, and like many other couples made a point of kissing by moonlight on the world-famous Lovers' Bridge. Unfortunately for them, homosexuality is a crime in South Bigtopia and they were arrested.

OPTION ONE

"@@firstname(1)@@ and @@firstname(2)@@ perhaps could have been more circumspect, but they're @@DEMONYM@@ citizens who have committed no crime under our laws," phones in @@DEMONYM@@ Consulate Officer Les Beecalm. "We have a moral obligation to negotiate their release. I suggest we could make a couple of trade concessions, favouring South Bigtopian woolen goods with selective tariffs on competitor nations, for example. In return, our out-of-the-closet citizens can be gotten out of hot water. I'm also confident we can establish procedures to send home any @@DEMONYM@@ arrested there in future. Everybody wins."

Outcome: when their backs are against the walls @@PLURALDEMONYM@@ look out for gay men

OPTION TWO

Reverend Yuman Adesina is both a priest and a general in the South Bigtopian Holy Army, and he has a counter-offer. "Gayness is against the will of the Lord our God. We will give you back these transgressors, but you must recognise the holy truth that homosexuality is a grave sin. Ban batty-boy loving in @@NAME@@, and we'll extradite these criminals to your jurisdiction. Let us move forward together, in faith." He gazes up lovingly at a semi-naked statuary depiction of his deity's son, and falls to his knees, mouth agape in adoration.

@@DEMONYM@@ tourists @@randommalename(1)@@ and @@randommalename(2)@@ were recently on a romantic city break in the capital of South Bigtopia, and like many other couples made a point of kissing each other by moonlight on the world-famous Lovers' Bridge. Unfortunately for them, homosexuality is a crime in South Bigtopia and they were arrested.

OPTION ONE

"@@firstname(1)@@ and @@firstname(2)@@ perhaps could have been more circumspect, but @@DEMONYM@@ citizens who have committed no crime under our laws," phones in @@DEMONYM@@ Consulate Officer Les Beecalm. "We have a moral obligation to negotiate their release. I suggest we could make a couple of trade concessions, favouring South Bigtopian woolen goods with selective tariffs on competitior nations, for example. In return, our out-of-the-closet citizens can be gotten out of hot water. I'm also confident we can establish procedures to send home any @@DEMONYM@@ arrested there in future. Everybody wins."

Outcome: when their backs are against the walls @@PLURALDEMONYM@@ look out for gay men

OPTION TWO

Reverend Yuman Adesina is both a priest and a general in the South Bigtopian Holy Army, and he has a counter-offer. "Gayness is against the will of the Lord our God. We will give you back these transgressors, but you must recognise the holy truth that homosexuality is a grave sin. Ban batty-boy loving in @@NAME@@, and we'll extradite these criminals to your jurisdiction. Let us move forward together, in faith." He gazes up lovingly at a semi-naked statuary depiction of his deity's son, and falls to his knees in adoration.

I think I just witnessed one of the quickest title changes in the GI forum.

Are you in need of a title? How about "When A Kiss Goes Amiss"?

Also I see that your description says that these guys were "kissing each other." But wouldn't it be more appropriate to say that they were "kissing?" (I'm being a pedantic grammarian here.) Reciprocal verbs such as "hug," "kiss," etc. are thought to be "symmetrical predicates" so "X and Y hugged" or "X and Y kissed" already imply reciprocity. "Kissing each other" and "hugging each other", however, are not exactly the same, and do not necessarily imply simultaneity. I mean, one of these guys could kiss the other guy on the cheek, and then the other guy could do so likewise: this would be "kissing each other." Just "kissing" however, implies simultaneity.

I mean, if these guys find a nitpicky lawyer like me in South Bigtopia, they could just be acquitted on the grounds that "kissing each other" did not necessarily imply romance. Just saying. (Heck, maybe you should add this to the issue?)

Though I should point out that the first and last name used are real Nigerian ones, that Nigeria is one of the few nations in the world where homosexuality remains a capital crime, and Nigeria is pretty much evenly split between Christianity and Islam, but united in religious conservatism.

Frieden-und Freudenland wrote:I think I just witnessed one of the quickest title changes in the GI forum.

Are you in need of a title? How about "When A Kiss Goes Amiss"?

Will bear it in mind. Quite like Gay Men Held By Police right now.

Also I see that your description says that these guys were "kissing each other." But wouldn't it be more appropriate to say that they were "kissing?" (I'm being a pedantic grammarian here.) Reciprocal verbs such as "hug," "kiss," etc. are thought to be "symmetrical predicates" so "X and Y hugged" or "X and Y kissed" already imply reciprocity. "Kissing each other" and "hugging each other", however, are not exactly the same, and do not necessarily imply simultaneity. I mean, one of these guys could kiss the other guy on the cheek, and then the other guy could do so likewise: this would be "kissing each other." Just "kissing" however, implies simultaneity.

I'm seeing some similarities to #237, although this is a little better than that issue because #237 is vague about whether the tourists actually committed the act they are accused of (even regardless of whether or not you agree that the act should be illegal or that the crime deserves the death penalty) or were arrested on false charges by a corrupt government.

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:"@@firstname(1)@@ and @@firstname(2)@@ perhaps could have been more circumspect, but ___ @@DEMONYM@@ citizens who have committed no crime under our laws," phones in @@DEMONYM@@ Consulate Officer Les Beecalm.

Frieden-und Freudenland wrote:Also I see that your description says that these guys were "kissing each other." But wouldn't it be more appropriate to say that they were "kissing?" (I'm being a pedantic grammarian here.) Reciprocal verbs such as "hug," "kiss," etc. are thought to be "symmetrical predicates" so "X and Y hugged" or "X and Y kissed" already imply reciprocity. "Kissing each other" and "hugging each other", however, are not exactly the same, and do not necessarily imply simultaneity. I mean, one of these guys could kiss the other guy on the cheek, and then the other guy could do so likewise: this would be "kissing each other." Just "kissing" however, implies simultaneity.

I do think that's excessively pedantic, and I'm saying that as someone who's often excessively pedantic

"Each other" is largely redundant, but I don't think it's actually wrong, if you want to place a little more emphasis on it.

Australian rePublic wrote:Option 2 implies that South Bigtopia is Abrahamic

And far more specifically Christianity. Other Abrahamic religions don't acknowledge a Son of God. (Islam does recognize the existence of Jesus, but downplays his importance as "merely a prophet" and not someone you're supposed to worship.)

Last edited by Trotterdam on Wed Jun 13, 2018 6:50 am, edited 1 time in total.

I'm seeing some similarities to #237, although this is a little better than that issue because #237 is vague about whether the tourists actually committed the act they are accused of (even regardless of whether or not you agree that the act should be illegal or that the crime deserves the death penalty) or were arrested on false charges by a corrupt government.

I thought about that and considered it too, and intentionally made this issue avoid mentioning the death penalty, so that the underlying question is different despite narrative framing similarities.

I think you're missing a "they are" here?

Ah thanks.

Spelling error.

Oops!

I think I'm missing half the pun here?

Yuman is pronounced You Man.Adesina is pronounced Are de Sinner.

"Each other" is largely redundant, but I don't think it's actually wrong, if you want to place a little more emphasis on it.

Sure, but I'm with FuF on the clarity.

And far more specifically Christianity. Other Abrahamic religions don't acknowledge a Son of God. (Islam does recognize the existence of Jesus, but downplays his importance as "merely a prophet" and not someone you're supposed to worship.)

Fair, but I am intentionally satirising Christianity, and how the dislike of homosexuality goes hand in hand with kneeling to a near naked man on a cross. Not trying to be offensive, of course, as I'm all for religious tolerance, but I'd personally consider that observation to be within acceptable ranges of satire for this game. Anyone who edits can decide for sure of course.

Do you chaps and chapesses think we need an option that says "You have to respect the laws of nations you are visiting, leave them to face the consequences?"

It sounds to me like a functional dismiss button, but could be tied to a drop in niceness and crime.

To me, it sounds like a functional dismiss.

More importantly, it seems similar to what was done with "A Sticky Situation" "All in the Family", where there's an option for @@LEADER@@ to leave his uncle in the mess he made by smuggling maple syrup.

On the stats side, I also don't see how abandoning people to their fate abroad (for things that aren't crimes at home, and arguably shouldn't be crimes anywhere) would lead to a drop in crime at home.

Do you chaps and chapesses think we need an option that says "You have to respect the laws of nations you are visiting, leave them to face the consequences?"

It sounds to me like a functional dismiss button, but could be tied to a drop in niceness and crime.

More pertinently, not sure how to make an option of that sort funny.

What do you think?

The interesting thing is homosexuality is a crime in South Bigtopia (according to your narrative), not necessarily public display of affection. So I am wondering what would happen if these two guys went there, but did not kiss in public. By the way, we don't know whether these two guys were married, but suppose they were. If homosexuality is a crime, I am guessing that the border patrol in South Bigtopia would not allow them to enter the country? Because you know, the actual "crime" here would be gay marriage itself. (How they would know whether they were married or not would be another question, of course.)

Ugh, anyway. Maybe gay @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ citizens could travel to Bigtopia with their same-sex partners dressed as the opposite sex, so as not to attract attention or something like that?

The interesting thing is homosexuality is a crime in South Bigtopia (according to your narrative), not necessarily public display of affection. So I am wondering what would happen if these two guys went there, but did not kiss in public. By the way, we don't know whether these two guys were married, but suppose they were. If homosexuality is a crime, I am guessing that the border patrol in South Bigtopia would not allow them to enter the country? Because you know, the actual "crime" here would be gay marriage itself. (How they would know whether they were married or not would be another question, of course.)

Well, RL places that ban or persecute homosexuality tend to go with the attitude of "if you don't show, we won't ask" when it comes to foreigners. I figure for this issue, if they hadn't shown affection, no-one would have known they were gay.

Ugh, anyway. Maybe gay @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ citizens could travel to Bigtopia with their same-sex partners dressed as the opposite sex, so as not to attract attention or something like that?

Interesting. I hesitate to use transvestitism as a source of humour though, especially in the context of homosexuality. I know I'm executing a double standard here, in being happy to satirise Christianity but not being happy to satirise transgender, but I guess it's a punching up / punching down thing.

The interesting thing is homosexuality is a crime in South Bigtopia (according to your narrative), not necessarily public display of affection. So I am wondering what would happen if these two guys went there, but did not kiss in public. By the way, we don't know whether these two guys were married, but suppose they were. If homosexuality is a crime, I am guessing that the border patrol in South Bigtopia would not allow them to enter the country? Because you know, the actual "crime" here would be gay marriage itself. (How they would know whether they were married or not would be another question, of course.)

Well, RL places that ban or persecute homosexuality tend to go with the attitude of "if you don't show, we won't ask" when it comes to foreigners. I figure for this issue, if they hadn't shown affection, no-one would have known they were gay.

Ugh, anyway. Maybe gay @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ citizens could travel to Bigtopia with their same-sex partners dressed as the opposite sex, so as not to attract attention or something like that?

Interesting. I hesitate to use transvestitism as a source of humour though, especially in the context of homosexuality. I know I'm executing a double standard here, in being happy to satirise Christianity but not being happy to satirise transgender, but I guess it's a punching up / punching down thing.

Yeah okay. I guess it could be misconstrued in that way, though I didn't mean to mock transvestitism. But I guess it would be kinda tragicomic if cisgender gay people had to act as if they were transgender just to escape punishment in such a country.

I understand, though.

----------

Speaking of which, Iran is an interesting case. They actually do not allow homosexuality, but they are more lenient when it comes to transgenderism, and they will actually allow gay couples to get married if one of them has gender re-assignment surgery - because after that, their marriage counts as heterosexual, of course. I've heard that some cisgender gay people in Iran have had to undergo sex-change operations because of this. Now I am thinking about whether I could write a similar issue for NS nations that banned homosexuality, but not transgenderism. Hmm...

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:I thought about that and considered it too, and intentionally made this issue avoid mentioning the death penalty, so that the underlying question is different despite narrative framing similarities.

I don't think that is the underlying question. The underlying question is "should we allow our citizens to be punished in foreign countries for dubious reasons". The exact degree of punishment isn't that important to the narrative. In particular, both death and imprisonment are things that prevent the tourists from returning home to a country where they'll be safe from persecution.

Do you chaps and chapesses think we need an option that says "You have to respect the laws of nations you are visiting, leave them to face the consequences?"

It sounds to me like a functional dismiss button, but could be tied to a drop in niceness and crime.

Well, I tend to be in favor of including options when they seem like a reasonable response to the situation. You're more concerned with keeping option counts down than I am.

Perhaps deal with it by issuing a negative travel advisory discouraging citizens from going to those nations. If any of them ignore your advice and go there anyway, then the consequences are their own fault.

Frieden-und Freudenland wrote:Speaking of which, Iran is an interesting case. They actually do not allow homosexuality, but they are more lenient when it comes to transgenderism, and they will actually allow gay couples to get married if one of them has gender re-assignment surgery - because after that, their marriage counts as heterosexual, of course. I've heard that some cisgender gay people in Iran have had to undergo sex-change operations because of this. Now I am thinking about whether I could write a similar issue for NS nations that banned homosexuality, but not transgenderism. Hmm...

This is something you can emulate in NationStates, since there are issues for banning homosexuality and for legalizing transgenderism (though the latter isn't currently tracked as a flag), and nothing in particular to stop you from choosing to do both. This is more interesting to explore for something that's happening in your own nation (if you chose those policies) than something that's happening in a foreign nation, though.

"@@firstname(1)@@ and @@firstname(2)@@ perhaps could have been more circumspect, but they're @@DEMONYM@@ citizens who have committed no crime under our laws," phones in @@DEMONYM@@ Consulate Officer Les Beecalm. "We have a moral obligation to negotiate their release. I suggest we could make a couple of trade concessions, favouring South Bigtopian woolen goods with selective tariffs on competitor nations, for example. In return, our out-of-the-closet citizens can be gotten out of hot water. I'm also confident we can establish procedures to send home any @@DEMONYM@@ arrested there in future. Everybody wins."

Something that occurs to me on second reading - has the South Bigtopian ambassador actually said that they would accept this deal? I mean, if they're really theocratic they could just claim that taking a firm stance against the heretical abomination of homosexuality is more important than a little bit of trade.

Option 2 is just a little bit on the nose about Christianity to be frank. The character is a priest, looks up to a semi-naked son of god and talks about his deity being a Lord. Any one or 2 of these things in isolation would be plausible deniability but all of them together.... I'd expect a bit of backlash because of it if this. It satirises the faith very well though so I don't mind too much

Option 4 is a masterpiece.

Conserative Morality wrote:"It's not time yet" is a tactic used by reactionaries in every era. "It's not time for democracy, it's not time for capitalism, it's not time for emancipation." Of course it's not time. It's never time, not on its own. You make it time. If you're under fire in the no-man's land of WW1, you start digging a foxhole even if the ideal time would be when you *aren't* being bombarded, because once you wait for it to be 'time', other situations will need your attention, assuming you survive that long. If the fields aren't furrowed, plow them. If the iron is not hot, make it so. If society is not ready, change it.

Option 2 is just a little bit on the nose about Christianity to be frank. The character is a priest, looks up to a semi-naked son of god and talks about his deity being a Lord. Any one or 2 of these things in isolation would be plausible deniability but all of them together.... I'd expect a bit of backlash because of it if this. It satirises the faith very well though so I don't mind too much

Option 4 is a masterpiece.

I was a being deliberately a little cheeky when I said "plausible deniability".

Though, it still doesn't have to be God with Jesus as the deity's son. As FuF said, it could be Zeus and Apollo. Or Jupiter and Mars. Plenty of half-naked sons of God to be going on with. And there is evidence that "Priest" and "Priestess" were titles used in pre-Christian countries by those who served the gods.

So, still doesn't have to be Christian, just because -- arguably -- Christians adopted familiar titles that were already there when building the church.

TBH, though, I am a Christian, and -- as satire -- it doesn't remotely offend me (I even suggested making it a tad more suggestive to amp up the humour). There is a chance of it offending someone, I suppose. But, I find that any satire that even touches on religion has a chance of offending somebody.

With the new option three, I like it. It's a nice way to have a "respect national laws" option while not having it act as a functional dismiss.

The Free Joy State wrote:Though, it still doesn't have to be God with Jesus as the deity's son. As FuF said, it could be Zeus and Apollo. Or Jupiter and Mars.

Those are usually just treated as gods in their own right, rather than being a central part of the worship of their parents.

Christianity is pretty unique in being monotheistic, but still having a "son of God" that is arguably treated as even more important despite officially being something distinct from the actual God.

The Free Joy State wrote:And there is evidence that "Priest" and "Priestess" were titles used in pre-Christian countries by those who served the gods.

Well, they weren't, because they didn't speak English

However, "priest" is the usual translation of most religions' main titles, with the notable exception of Judaism and Islam, which just so happen to be fairly well-known. (Actually, Judaism does have priests, there just aren't any right now.)

Trotterdam wrote:Something that occurs to me on second reading - has the South Bigtopian ambassador actually said that they would accept this deal? I mean, if they're really theocratic they could just claim that taking a firm stance against the heretical abomination of homosexuality is more important than a little bit of trade.

Sure, but like Brexit and the Mexican Wall, voters can vote for something and leaders can decide to do something with the dream of how they'd like it to happen, while conveniently ignoring that they'll need the agreement of an outside nation.

I'd say that picking any option is basically stating an intent, and subsequent execution of that intent is dealt with off-camera.

He gazes up adoringly at a semi-naked statuary depiction of his deity.

The same joke exists, but its a bit less deliberately inflammatory. I mean, implying a priest wants to suck off Jesus could easily be complained about as going too far, I think, and I say that as an atheist.